Subject: [MissoulaGov] ballpark meeting
Date: Friday 08 September 2006 9:36 pm
From: "Bob Jaffe" <bjaffe@ci.missoula.mt.us>
To: missoulagov@cmslists.com
On Thursday Stacy and I met with the Mayor, Bruce Bender, Brentt Ramharter, Matt Ellis, Wes Spiker, and Joe Easton. We reviewed the Ballpark Use Agreement and the Manual of Policy. There were a few areas we focused on:
1) The Payment in lieu of taxes (PILT)
2) Maintenance Fund
3) Design Modifications (Canopy)
4) Noise
5) Parking
6) Traffic (barricade)
1) The Payment in lieu of taxes (PILT)
Playball's position on this has been that the best use of their money is for building the stadium. There was also some kind of argument that since the city hasn't built the parking lot they were supposed to build, Playball isn't obligated to pay the PILT. I don't agree with that argument. I don't see any linkage between those two issues. But there was consensus on the first point. All resources should go towards completing the stadium. The language for the PILT time line in the document needs to be revised.
2) Maintenance Fund
Same as number one.
3) Design Modifications
Design changes are supposed to be approved by the city. This does not apply to routine change orders and this does not just refer to the standard building department approval. The story with the canopy, as told on Thursday, is that it was part of the original design as presented by the ball park architect. It was not a concession to the neighborhood for sound mitigation. When bids came back, the prices were too high and the canopy was removed from the spec. The development agreement says that changes to the plans approved by the city also need to be reviewed and approved by the city. The original plans actually approved do not contain a canopy. The weird part of this is that the canopy continued to be discussed as something that would come in a later phase. My guess is that Playball and the City weren't making an issue or distinction between "approved" designs and what everyone hoped to build some day. The contract calls for the "approved design."
4) Noise
Baseball games are exempt from the noise ordinance. But they are supposed to abide by the spirit of the ordinance. So they turn it down at 10. If there are complaints they turn it down. They constantly try to be aware of how loud it is and turn it down when necessary. It will still be audible in the neighborhood. The expectation is that once the buildings are complete the sound dynamic will be much different. The effort to continue to monitor and analyze the sound will continue at that point. Matt indicated that sound experts would be used to make suggestions. The current protocol is that if someone is disturbed by the sound they should call 911. 911 will notify the officer on duty at the game. They will tell Matt. He will adjust the sound.
5) Parking
Playball is supposed to contract with local lots to provide 400+ spaces within a mile of the park. They have something like 1500 spots accounted for. The city is supposed to build a parking lot in the vicinity of the ball park. It will do this as one of the first phases of the millsite project.
There will be a shared parking lot built for the new park and the stadium.
It will be on the West side of the stadium.
6) Traffic (barricade)
They are supposed to block traffic at River and Hickory. There was consensus that this has been accomplished with the understanding that a few cars may evade the barricade. This summer the procedure changed so that at the end of the game a half barrier is placed at Cregg and Hickory. This lets traffic out of Hickory but prevents stadium traffic from going South on Hickory. The police officer that used to be placed down there is now up at the River street barricade. This prevents the people in that section of Hickory from trying to get out that way. During the earlier part of the game a few people may get out that way before the police take up their position. This was not seen as a crisis. When Cregg is connected to Wyoming in the near future this
will also change the whole dynamic of stadium traffic. The language in the
manual of policy is not very clear on how long the barrier should be up and whether and when it should be staffed. That language will need to be revised.
The administration is going to work on revisions the Use Agreement to reflect some of the issues above. Council will take up revisions to the manual of policy later this fall. It was requested that the referral to revise the agreement be specific to reflect the sections that need revision.
If folks have suggestions for what they would like changed please let me know over the next month. My guess is we will go after this between late October and December.
Thanks,
Bob Jaffe
Missoula City Council, Ward 3
<mailto:bjaffe@ci.missoula.mt.us> bjaffe@ci.missoula.mt.us
406-728-1052
-------------------------------------------------------